I'm talking about harm, full stop, enemy/ civ/ FF inclusive. I perceive it to be cultural so I see the indoctrinate is total and all-encompassing. Perhaps I'm wrong - I rather hope that I am...Originally Posted by JMA
I would say this is a luxury born of NZ's position and boutique recent strategic involvement/ military history.
Example - I sat in a lecture yesterday on our approach to irregular activity, given by one of our instrumental HQ/ leadership types. It lumped our recent 'successes' in Bouganville, Bosnia, East Timor, Solomon Islands and Bamiyan (Afghanistan) to the application of a competent 'hearts and minds' approach. Assumed and explicitly stated as a conclusion was the fact that 'hearts and minds' kiwi-style was our way of the future to operational success.
A further case in point - we have our defence review (new government white paper) due it in a few months. Public reporting indicates that our MinDefence will elevate 'humanitarian disaster relief' to being a core defence function, and we will reallocate procurement and training accordingly.
Don't shoot the messenger - I don't believe that playing soccer with kids in Timor and handing out blankets in Bamiyan helps our cause - but this view is institutionalised. I held this view when I first participated on this board, and that learning experience was a rather brutal way of undermining my organisational upbringing.
In academic defence of a 'do minimal harm' policy, it's not that bad a concept. After all we need to win the peace - what better way to do that than ensure your avoid destruction and killing wherever possible? It won't work against a competent or conventional army that requires defeat, but against a threat group that is relatively weak, the policy holds up. Knowing when NOT to apply it will be the trouble, and the consequences of misapplication will be very, very painful.
Now, where were we? Shotguns?
Bookmarks